Greens, Libertarians need to be ready for media glare

While there is little optimism to be found in the presidential campaign, there are at least glimmers of novelty. This year our dominant parties have each nominated controversial candidates, either one of whom, depending on who you talk to, is the harbinger of the end times. Public interest in our leading alternative parties, the Libertarians and the Greens, has spiked this year.

Desert Sage has argued previously that Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson and the Green Party’s presumptive nominee, Jill Stein, should be permitted by the Commission on Presidential Debates to share the debate stage with Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. Johnson and Stein have both qualified for ballots in enough states to establish a numerical path to the electoral vote necessary to win the presidency. By definition, it is false to say that Johnson or Stein have no chance of winning, although the odds are obviously against them. Stein, in particular, would have to run the table in nearly every state where she is on the ballot. Nonetheless, their campaigns have demonstrated a level of organization and public support more substantial than matchup polling.

Opening up the political process to parties competing with the traditional duopoly will enhance our politics even if other parties do not win elections right away. Recognizing more ideas and critiques in political discourse expands what is possible in politics, and our stodgy traditional parties might be compelled to improve if they had to compete with parties that made credible appeals to the working class. Indeed, it is hard to imagine Trump’s populism being so effective if American workers had not been betrayed.

Johnson and Stein, in turn, have to adjust to a higher level of scrutiny and awareness of how the media might portray them. For the Libertarians, this lesson came at their national convention back in May. James Weeks, a candidate for party chairman, made the wrong kind of news for the party by performing a strip tease at the podium, live on C-Span and widely replayed (we won’t say “covered”) by major media. Pro tip for the national stage: leave your clothes on.

The Green Party, meanwhile, needs to turn the page on some historic flirtations with pseudo-science.

Jill Stein has been accused of pandering to the anti-vaccine movement (somewhat unfairly, when one examines her statements closely) and has indisputably indulged in some non-scientific fear mongering regarding genetically modified foods.

To be effective as an alternative to the Democrats, Stein needs to focus precisely on the political economics of technology: Monsanto, not loose talk about “Frankenfoods.” She also had a rough time in the press last week when video emerged of her talking off the cuff at a campaign stop in March and saying strange things about wireless internet being harmful to children’s brains. (Memo: Wifi does not harm your brain. Do not be afraid of your internet router.)

If either candidate presents as kooky, it may be a long time before the electorate investigates alternatives again. Johnson and Stein need to look like potential presidents. While they are unlikely to win, we need to see them as credible leaders, people we could imagine competently governing the executive branch and making command decisions. While offering alternative ideological views, they must still speak rationally about governance, policy, and most certainly about science.

A solid footing in basic scientific knowledge is crucial during our present climate emergency, when elected lawmakers think snow disproves global warming and there is still cultural resistance to the theory of biological evolution. Where “normal” politicians fail us, the “alternatives” must lead.

Algernon D’Ammassa is Desert Sage. Write to him at DesertSageMail@gmail.com